W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > March 2004

Re: [OWL-S] new IOPE example #1

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:16:18 -0500
Message-Id: <FA744424-831D-11D8-8F97-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>

Quick response.

On Mar 31, 2004, at 2:54 AM, David Martin wrote:
>   <process:hasEffect>
>     <???:Formula>
>       <???:inLanguage rdf:datatype=
>         "&xsd;anyURI">...swrl...</???:inLanguage>

I wouldn't use a literal here. The problems that faced us with 
parameterTypes don't apply. I expect swrl et al to have uris and could 
be made to be of type, say, LogicFormalism.

>       <???:conjuncts rdf:parseType="Collection">
>         <swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
>           <swrl:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="&arithmetic;sum"/>
>           <swrl:argument1>
>             <arithmetic:Pair>
>               <first rdf:resource="#Add_In1">
>               <second rdf:resource="#Add_In2">
>             </arithmetic:Pair>
>           </swrl:argument1>
>           <swrl:argument2 rdf:resource="#Add_Out"/>
>         </swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
>       </???:conjuncts>
>     </???:Formula>
>   </process:hasEffect>
> </process:AtomicProcess>
> (1) Are we happy with having a Formula class, with properties
> "inLanguage" and "conjuncts"?  If so, is it defined in DRS' namespace,
> or where?  Should a value of inLanguage be a URI?
> (2) Does the formula content need to be a literal, as we have
> discussed?  If so, how is that done?  With parsetype=Literal?  But
> then I'm not clear about where (on what property) to put that.

On some property wrapping ???:conjuncts. (well, conjuncts would need a 
parent node then). Hmm. That makes it a touch less appealing. The 
problem is that *our* "formula" really is a wrapper for other people's 
"formual" with extra metadata. So a bit of repetition seems very hard 
to avoid.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 09:16:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:12 UTC